This is one topic I keep pushing – unfortunately with little success. Namely that we should not see the Left – at least not the common average members – as people consciously scheming for social status gains. This is a mistake. Rather they are going for subjective, internalized status i.e. basically for self esteem. It is not a real social grab but it is the irresistible attraction people who have shit for self esteem feel for anything that temporarily gives them permission to feel a bit better about themselves. The ones on the top may be scheming Machiavellians but the rank and file is largely trying to cope with these kinds of psychological problems.

So I think this is a big mistake in most commonly used status models. People eat because they are hungry, not because they need nutrients, they have sex because they want pleasure not because they want kinds, and similar they are going for subjective self esteem boosts, not objective social status.

This is stuff like lifting weights is so useful for deconverting them.

GC Reply:July 11th, 2016 at 1:38 pm

Reminds me of North Korea. Visitors go to empty restaurants where banquets are laid out on to empty tables. Presumably, this is to show that they have lost of food. Which of course, they don’t.

Countries with lots of food don’t need to make a big deal of the fact.

smg Reply:July 9th, 2016 at 2:05 pm

Unlike acid washed jeans and other fads, the furor over racism never ends. It’s a permanent part of the American torture chamber, err, “experience’, and it’s not escapable. Even if we go media dark our schools and employers will insist on diversity or some other struggle session type activity.

The left’s use of racism is a constant, inescapable, mind invading virus, not a poor fashion choice.

“And it means that you have to let that question keep playing over and over in your head, even when it’s uncomfortable: “Am I wrong on this? Am I being racist?” Even for the best of us, the answer will sometimes be “Yes.” I can’t think of anything more terrifying than to acknowledge that one fact.”

They still don’t see it. The terrifying thing would not be to discover “I am racist” – that would only provoke endless repetitions of their favourite activity, intellectual masturbation and flagellation. The truly terrifying thing for them would be to come to the realisation “There’s nothing wrong with being racist.”

one can tell pretenders by how they namedrop their intellectual superiors.
without shewing even anything close to a comparably equal talent.
incidentally, this is all documented in Nietzsche, about how
the lower types will resort to the arsenal, the meth-
ods of resentment. but it is also somewhat
described in the Old and the Nu Test
-ament. they´re easiy to play
with these proles. and
should be made
use of by
NRx

there is no virtue in pity for simulacra males.
the only mercy (cf. Latin ‘merx’)
is to make use of
them.

The Amazing Atheist has been on Youtube for something like 10 years. To borrow ‘chan parlance, he is a lolcow. Google “Amazing Atheist banana” and try not the bleach your eyes afterwards. If I remember correctly, he begs his fans for money all time, has never had a real job, and is in general a degenerate.

It takes time. at some point an atheist realizes ‘All men are created equal’ is a religious statement. and all men evolved in different environments, in sexual isolation from other groups, and hybridized with different hominids they met along the way, and developed different cultures that supported winning strategies to those different environments which cultures then fed back as selection pressures.
The atheist type like the libertarian and nerd type eventually get there its just there are a lot of cultural selection pressures along the way.

>The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man.

The Chesterton fragment seems to rely on how the concept that moderns refer to as “Schelling point” is inconceivable, and/or on a generalization that human populations are always so unequal that equality under the law is self-evidently a hopelessly impractical Schelling point, and also on a comfortable unspoken assumption that sharp impartial arbitrary but usable written standards have no significant practical value in law. Such pig-ignorant blindness is really arguing “as well as possible” against democracy in partiicular, and against equality under the law in general? It seems to me that one of Smith’s lensubermenschen could eat a handful of crayon shavings and puke a better argument than that.

Paul Samuelson was famous for the idea of “revealed preference”. That didn’t stop him, when shilling for dysfunctional Communist tyrannies in the “Alternative Economic Systems” chapter of his famously successful _Economics_ textbook, from pointedly ignoring the idea in favor of knocking down a strawman. (It is indeed remarkable, as Greg Cochran recently mused, how grimly coyly fatuously incoherently ostensibly credulous academic economists were w.r.t. the Reds.) “It is a vulgar mistake to think that most people in Eastern Europe are miserable. Although it is undoubtedly true that few citizens of the West would trade their degree of economic comfort and political freedom for life in the Soviet, it is also true that a Soviet citizen thinks that he his living in a paradise in comparison with life in China or in earlier times.” In fact what was and is “vulgar” is to mention the pattern of putting up barbed wire and mines and machineguns to keep the workers from escaping their paradise. You don’t need the fancy academic version of “revealed preference” to see immediately that that pattern of escape and countermeasure is strong evidence indeed that, as in other regimes forcing their subjects to work and killing them if they try to escape, there was a great deal of unhappiness in the Soviet system.

Chesterton is famous for another “fence”. (In this case putting a hypothetical traditional fence front and center in the argument, rather than making villainous asses of mainstream economic academia by their enthusiastic complicity in pointedly ignoring a monstrous darling-of-Progressives fence.) That seemingly doesn’t stop Chesterton from — unless perhaps there is something in the larger context of the quote? — dispensing with that kind of thoughtful caution here. One doesn’t need an eloquent pundit’s version of Chesterton’s fence argument to see immediately that there is likely to be some value to sharp impartial standards and the simplicity of arbitrary equality. Laws, including old laws, have many arbitrary sharp rules like 70 schillings compensation for a cow. If one applied the same midwit parody of analytical thought we see trotted out here, there can be no basis for such laws except in a dogma that God created all cows equal, and we can all see that God didn’t, and indeed we can even see that any given cow may well be different in the depths of winter than at the height of summer. So we rule by acclamation that they were farcically stupid, and we arrogant impatient midwits are obviously ever so much wiser! And just because such institutions succeeded for millennia doesn’t mean we should think carefully or honestly, because once we have convinced ourselves that we are so much wiser than they, and their reasoning was so conveniently stupid, nothing could possibly go wrong when we scorn their institutions instead of analyzing them properly.

I dont think the founders had any delusions about equality or ever intended popular democracy. They wanted to solve the problems of monarchy and aristocracy. They saw wasted cognitive resources and an inefficient manner of ridding oneself of bad government. They thought they had crypto locked the parameters and allocated power to native white men of property over 21.They were men of reason litttle interested in religion personally and attempting to unite states of several religions. ‘All men are created equal” was their clever way of controlling the frame. It forces monarchists to defy scripture while stroking the religious while winking at the rationalists. You want to know someones true intentions watch their feet; did they give niggers and women the vote did they give the poor the vote. they did not. did they create positive rights they did not.
Power is like heat it seeks to equalize. The founders rightly thought themselves as capable as any with a title and they were correct,They understood them selves to be an elite ruling class never the less. But look how it worked on the continent commoners who amassed enough money sought power eventually buying a title through marriage or politics. But once an insulator is removed the heat attempts the broach the next divide.But the power is dissipated to a mere vote while real power remains at the top. democracy is the illusion of shared power.

I thought the point of Nietzschean philosophy was NOT being a special snowflake.

It tries to navigate a middle ground between individualism and anti-Darwinian conformity. If Nietzsche has any guiding principle, it is realism through hierarchy, supremacy, excellence and cold logicality.

Carl Reply:July 20th, 2016 at 4:09 am

I thought group differences were real, and had nothing to do with ideology?

Admin, I just want to say that I’m proud of you for getting out of that country full of docks who talk like fags and shits all retarded. (American early modern shakeaperian here)

What I mean to say is that even though it had it’s day that Britain has a bunch of bullshot old conventions. It had it’s day and used to do plenty of nice frontier/pionering stuff especially relative to other Euros it seems mostly dead now.

Lately I’ve been more convinced and appreciative of the benefits of techno-commercial practicality even if ugly/coarse whatever, also extreme individualism, frontier in literal sense of space and abstract breaking of barriers etc. Though one must be careful of not valuing it above all else and completely forgetting wheree we are now is like like some Western people’s seem to be doing, it is Still interesting.

I Still find c ontinential philosophy more interesting than analytical though, and outside of Wittgenstein and a few others it seems dreary/ even just plain retarded. Also have soft spot for lots of old architecture.

I hate to agree wholeheartedly with the crayon-scribblings of an Arkham inmate, (Lovecraft not Batman), but I’ve actually had the same idea. 4chan is an early manifestation of the possibility of machine sentience. Anons are its neurons, and memes are its neurotransmitters.